EpsteinProject.org

Court records

2022.04.07_Response_-_Reply_Motion_1

Format
pdf
Set
Court Records
Text
Searchable

View at the original source

Text as released

Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
  OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS



  FILED
April 07, 2022 05:14 ~M
ST-2021-RV-00005
 TAMARA CHARLES                        IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
CLERK OF THE COURT                          DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN
                                               *********************************
              IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF
                                                                                     CASE NO: ST-2021-RV-00005
              JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
                                                                                     Originating Case No: ST-19-PB-80
              Deceased.


                           REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES

                                     COME NOW the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the “Epstein

              Estate”), DARREN K. INDYKE and RICHARD D. KAHN (the “Co-Executors”), and submit

              this reply brief in support of their Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (the “Motion for Attorneys’

              Fees”) dated March 4, 2022. 1

                                                                    ARGUMENT

                   I.       The Co-Executors Are Entitled To Their Attorneys’ Fees.

                                     Despite having made the GVI Motions in the Probate Division, the GVI argues in

              its opposition that (i) the Court orders denying the GVI Motions and GVI Appeal (together, the

              “Orders”) are not “judgments” and a party may not receive attorneys’ fees until the entirety of the

              proceedings are complete, and (ii) the Co-Executors are not the “prevailing party.” That is

              incorrect. First, the GVI ignores that this is a probate matter in which the asserted need for a final

              judgment resolving the proceeding is neither logical nor required by applicable statute. Second,

              the GVI’s arg

[…]

Open in the archive